> While its true that RAIDZ2 is /much /safer that RAIDZ, it seems that > /any /RAIDZ configuration will outlive me and so I conclude that RAIDZ2 > is unnecessary in a practical sense... This conclusion surprises me > given the amount of attention people give to double-parity solutions - > what am I overlooking?
When talking to Netapp, some of their folks have mentioned their DP solution wasn't necessarily so useful for handling near-simultaneous disk loss (although it does do that). But that when a disk failed, it would not be uncommon for reconstruction to be unable to read some data off the remaining disks (perhaps a bad sector or bad data that fails checksum). With 1P, you have to shut down the volume or leave a hole in the filesystem. With 2P, you reconstruct that one read and continue. -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
